I cringed at the sentence "Receive tuning (if it can be called such) was achieved by the precisely cut antenna." which is actually how EVERY radio is tuned; the antenna is a component of the resonant circuit which forms the receiver.
Uhm, sorta but not really. The antenna is certainly a component of the system but it doesn't tune anything. Antennas frequently have a bandwidth much higher than necessary so a radio can receive/transmit multiple frequencies (sometimes at the same time). Radios (even simple ones) have post antenna tuning circuitry to tune-in the frequency of interest. Otherwise your car antenna (or TV antenna) couldn't receive multiple stations. Or your cell phone and/or RC transmitter couldn't frequency hop. Frequency hopping radios are a thing, and only have one antenna to do it with.
Smart people who love books.
Librarians are awesome. Secret Superheroes indeed
BUT there are some weird issues with support of the latest VHDL standards from a lot of vendors which SUCKS. VHDL 2008 is still not fully supported, UGH.
All good advice. I would add that you don't need an actual device to run synthesis, you can get versions of the quartus and xilinx tools from their website and run your design through it. Check the synthesis logs for warnings, and check your timing reports. Don't try to implement a huge logic cloud between clocks, but you can do a surprising amount. The timing reports will tell what's possible for a particular device and when you need to break your logic up more.
LEARN state machines!
Understand what the PLLs are for on each chip!
Learn how to cross clock domains properly, and how to limit your clock resource usage.
You're clearly arguing with someone not me.
The post I was responding to said:
the media would have you believe there are millions of people out there raping women and whatnot...
I think it takes millions of rapists (mostly men natch) to reach that number.
That's still seven or eight million men in absolute terms, of course
Everything else you said was arguing with statements nobody made. The definition of a straw-man argument. There really are millions of people (eight or nine to use your number) committing these crimes. This is staggering to me. All I was trying to show was that the decimal place in the OPs thought may have been misplaced. Nobody said tens of millions or hundreds of millions, or anything resembling ALL. The name 'millions' is absolutely the correct term to use, which was my one point. As for the rest of your post, I'm not sure who you're talking to.
I think you're conflating two points. From what I've seen, misogyny in games is described where a female character is portrayed with extremely negative female stereotypes.
I think this is a vastly different issue than commenting on the lack of representation in games. Those comments are saying 50% of the population is female, 50% of gamers are female, but only a few percent of characters in games are female. The gender of a specific character is irrelevant (and not typically discussed in that context), but in the aggregate there appears to be something out of place. Commenting on that dramatic difference is not calling developers misogynistic. People wanting that difference reduced to a fraction closer to something representing the actual people playing the games is also not calling developers misogynistic.
Issues of Gender Representation and Misogynistic representation are both gender related, and often discussed together. But you can't lump them into the same thing as they have very different consequences. You could have 100% of games with female leads but still be a horrible representation of women, and you could have no games with female leads and have no outright misogynistic representations. However, I think the point people are trying to make about gender representation is this: "An overly imbalanced representation of gender in the aggregate (towards either gender) has consequences and implications which are at best neutral and at worst quite negative. Given this, can we make things better?"
An adequate bootstrap is a contradiction in terms.